Individuals incarcerated in the Tulsa jail sued Tulsa County, the Tulsa County Sheriff, fifteen Special Judges and a district court judge in challenging the constitutionality of the county's wealth-based pretrial detention system. On June 6, 2018, the four plaintiffs, represented by Civil Rights Corps, filed this class-action lawsuit in the Northern District of Oklahoma. The case was assigned to Judge Claire Eagan. The plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgement Act, alleging that defendants violated their Equal Protection, Due Process, and Sixth Amendment rights by depriving them of their fundamental right to pretrial liberty and failing to provide counsel at bail hearings. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing the defendants from assigning bail without inquiring as to whether criminal defendants can pay it. The plaintiffs also asked the court to permanently enjoin the defendants from denying the putative class-members the right to a speedy, individualized hearing with counsel.

The plaintiffs were each arrested and informed that they had to pay bail ranging from $500 to $50,000 in order to be released from jail before their hearing. They were not asked whether they could afford the bond; because none of them had the financial resources to post bail, they were held for up to 11 days before their hearing without access to legal counsel. The plaintiffs alleged that this "wealth-based detention scheme" jailed presumptively innocent people for at least a week before they are able to challenge their detention. Such a system, the plaintiffs contend, violates the the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The same day that the complaint was filed, the plaintiffs asked for the court to certify their class. The plaintiffs proposed class consisted of "all people who are or will be detained in the Tulsa County Jail because they are unable to pay a secured financial condition of release."

The Tulsa County Sheriff answered the complaint on August 3, 2018, and the defendant-judges moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The defendant-judges argued that the plaintiffs failed to use available state court remedies, such as criminal appellate or habeas processes, that could provide relief. Additionally, the defendant-judges also argued that the plaintiffs failed to allege specific misconduct beyond the judges' lack of addressing bail at arraignments.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 22, 2018. However, on November 19, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' amended complaint, the plaintiffs' motion for class-certification, and the defendant-judges' motion to dismiss as moot. 2018 WL 6048016. The court found that the plaintiffs paid their bonds and were released from jail in the days following the original complaint and therefore no longer suffered an actual injury. The court also determined that the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception did not apply because these four plaintiffs were expected to comply with the law and therefore this injury was not expected to repeat with regards to these plaintiffs. Additionally, the Court found that the claims were not "inherently transitory."

On December 11, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the court's judgment. The plaintiffs objected to the court's characterization of their claims. The plaintiffs argued that they did not challenge their pretrial detention per se, but rather challenged their pretrial detention without counsel and a hearing. The plaintiffs argued that this characterization fit the "inherently transitory" exception to mootness because the Court could not reasonably consider a class certification motion before any named plaintiffs’ individual claims became moot.

Judge Eagan agreed with the plaintiffs and, on March 15, 2019, granted their motion for reconsideration. 2019 WL 1231675. The court reinstated the plaintiff's amended complaint and motion for class certification, and also reinstated the defendant-judges' motion to dismiss.

With the case active again, the defendant-judges filed their answer on March 25, 2019, and responded in opposition the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on April 15. The defendants also moved to stay the proceedings until the Oklahoma Senate considered a bill that would require individualized considerations of the ability to pay bail. On May 9, Judge Eagan granted the motion until the end of the legislative session or until the bill was signed into law. On June 14, the stay was lifted as the legislative session had ended.

The defendant-judges again moved to dismiss the claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on December 10. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing, since their pre-trial detention had ended and therefore they were no longer suffering an injury.

After engaging in settlement talks but failing to reach an agreement, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. They contended that the COVID-19 pandemic altered the conditions of detention such that injunctive relief was required in order to prevent irreparable harm to people detained solely based on their inability to pay bail. Judge Eagan denied the plaintiffs' motion on May 11, finding that the preliminary relief was inappropriate given the lack of COVID cases in Tulsa County jails at that time and because a preliminary injunction would not solve the bail issue raised before the pandemic began. 2020 WL 2393855.

As of January 13, 2021, the case remains ongoing.

Justin Hill - 01/13/2021


compress summary